As soon as concerns about Jonathan Fletcher’s behaviour were brought to the attention of Southwark, the statutory authorities, including the police, were informed. He was asked and agreed to withdraw from all aspects of his ministry exercised under his Permission to
Officiate (PTO) which means he was no longer able to minister in the Church of England.
Once the diocese was informed there was no criminal case to answer, the Bishop of
Southwark commissioned an independent safeguarding assessment based on information available at the time.
It concluded that whilst there was no evidence from the assessment that Jonathan Fletcher posed a significant sexual or physical risk to children there was a risk of him behaving towards vulnerable adults who may be seeking his spiritual guidance in a manner which may be harmful. In consequence, he has not been allowed to officiate in the Church of England since and formal contact has been made with him to explain this.
We have been alerted to further disclosures about Jonathan Fletcher’s behaviour and the diocese is looking at taking further formal action working closely with the National
Safeguarding Team and Emmanuel, Wimbledon.
The Church takes all safeguarding issues very seriously and the Bishop on behalf of the
diocese issues an unreserved apology to all those affected by these unacceptable
behaviours. Support is being offered to anyone who comes forward.
As with all serious safeguarding situations, a lessons learnt review will be carried out
according to the House of Bishops guidance.
What does this actually tell us? That there was insufficient evidence to charge. So is it that they are weighing things on the civil requirement it seems that on the balance of probabilities he has committed some indiscretion under Canon Law.
A very difficult situation to fully grasp with the limited information available.
Alpha, I agree that the lack of certain definitions that you mention Is glaring. For the sake of all concerned, including the subject of these “allegations”, they would be better to tell what exactly it is that has led to this situation. At the moment there is too much room for speculation, and that does not help anyone.
I entirely agree Alpha in regards to the Diocese concerned. Pot, kettle, black comes to mind…
The Telegraph article cited yesterday by George Conger included (if you are logged in to the Telegraph and get below the fold..)
It seems to me that that the handling of this non specific information that’s dribbling out into the public sphere by innuendo is wholly unsatisfactory and unjust. Someone needs to get a grip of the situation before a lot more harm than whatever was originally done by the alleged perpetrator is done to innocent people who might come under suspicion (by association).
Whenever will English Christians (and I am one) get over their mealy-mouthed, self righteous, snobby way of conducting public discourse, and just be open, honest and honourable?
What is so troubling about this is the total lack of detail. Exactly what was Jonathan Fletcher doing, and for how long was he doing it?
Gavin Ashenden said, in the Anglican Unscripted video, that it was “homo-erotic pastoral engagements with young men of a manipulative and blackmailing kind” and “it ranged from sexual horseplay to something much more serious”.
The fact that the diocese is not saying anything gives the impression of a cover-up. Why has it taken them two years to make even a limited public statement?
[…] Diocese, which covers the part of south London where Fletcher has been living in retirement, removed his Permission to […]
[…] year, in June 2019, that The Daily Telegraph reported that the Church of England Diocese of Southwark, which covers the part of south-west London where Fletcher was living in retirement, had removed […]
[…] in early 2017 after conducting ‘an independent safeguarding assessment’ on him. Southwark concluded that “whilst there was no evidence from the assessment that Jonathan Fletcher posed a […]